M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance made under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 33. The assessee has claimed weighted deduction @ 200% under section 35

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

disallowance under Section 14A is set aside to the files of the AO for deciding the issue in accordance with law. 3.6 The next issue is regarding the allowance of weighted deduction under section 35

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowance of claim of weighted deduction should be deleted and also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Leyland in ITA No.362/Chny/2024 dated 25.09.2024. 10.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowance of claim of weighted deduction should be deleted and also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Leyland in ITA No.362/Chny/2024 dated 25.09.2024. 10.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowance of claim of weighted deduction should be deleted and also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Leyland in ITA No.362/Chny/2024 dated 25.09.2024. 10.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2865, 2866, 2867 & 2868/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/S. Carborundum Universal Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Limited, No. 43, Vi Floor, Parry House Moore Street,Chennai Gpo Parrys, – 600 001. Pan: Aaacc-2474-P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]All Dated10.09.2024 For Assessment Years 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19.Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In These Appeals, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

disallowance of claim of weighted deduction should be deleted and also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Leyland in ITA No.362/Chny/2024 dated 25.09.2024. 10.4 On the other hand, the Id. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35

DCIT, CORP CIR-6(1), CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CAPITAL LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3168 & 3255/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Capital Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram House, 1St Floor, No. 4, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcs2726B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3216 & 3217/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Capital Limited, Shriram House, 1St Floor, No. 4, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1), Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 29.08.2018 Relevant To The 2

Section 10(35) of the Act is disallowed under Section 14A of the Act and is added back to book

DCIT, CORP CIR-6(1), CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CAPITAL LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3168 & 3255/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Capital Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram House, 1St Floor, No. 4, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcs2726B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3216 & 3217/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Capital Limited, Shriram House, 1St Floor, No. 4, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1), Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 29.08.2018 Relevant To The 2

Section 10(35) of the Act is disallowed under Section 14A of the Act and is added back to book

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3168 & 3255/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Capital Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram House, 1St Floor, No. 4, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcs2726B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3216 & 3217/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Capital Limited, Shriram House, 1St Floor, No. 4, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1), Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 29.08.2018 Relevant To The 2

Section 10(35) of the Act is disallowed under Section 14A of the Act and is added back to book

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3168 & 3255/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Capital Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram House, 1St Floor, No. 4, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcs2726B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3216 & 3217/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Capital Limited, Shriram House, 1St Floor, No. 4, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1), Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 29.08.2018 Relevant To The 2

Section 10(35) of the Act is disallowed under Section 14A of the Act and is added back to book

WABCO INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2606/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Wabco India Limited, Plot No. 3 (Sp), Iii Main Road, Income Tax, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 058. Chennai. [Pan: Aafca6421P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri S. Venkatasubramanian, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.12.2019

disallowance under section 35(2AB) of the Act at ₹.10,52,69,078/- and disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal f

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35(1)(i) of the Act. The Assessee has not preferred any Appeal 35(1)(i) of the Act. The Assessee has not preferred any Appeal 35(1)(i) of the Act. The Assessee has not preferred any Appeal against that finding and therefore, the question of approval by the that finding and therefore, the question of approval

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

disallowing the capital expenditure is erroneous by discriminating in accepting the Form 3CL. Firstly, let us understand the provisions of the Section 35

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

disallowing the capital expenditure is erroneous by discriminating in accepting the Form 3CL. Firstly, let us understand the provisions of the Section 35

ALBERT & CO. P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1) , CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Disallowance under Section 37 of the Act being 35,000 ROC Fee pertaining to earlier years debited to P&L Account

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Disallowance under Section 37 of the Act being 35,000 ROC Fee pertaining to earlier years debited to P&L Account

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Disallowance under Section 37 of the Act being 35,000 ROC Fee pertaining to earlier years debited to P&L Account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

disallowance under section 14A of the Act is common for all the AYs being AY 2011-12 to AY 2014- 15 except AY 2010-11. 4.2 Facts for AY 2010-11: During the AY 2010-11, the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs.11,83,308/- from investment in mutual funds which is exempt as per section 10(35

ELGI EQUIPMENTS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. JCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 973/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

disallowance of weighted deduction @ 150% as per section 35(2AB) of the Act is not justified. 28. On the other